Evidence that Eve lived 6000 years ago

[Micaiah]

Evidence has been bought to light that indicates mitochondrial Eve lived six thousand years ago. A number of evolutionists believe that we have a common mother dubbed Eve. This can be inferred from the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

The age of 'Eve' has been calculated assuming the age of the supposed common ape/human ancestors. From this it was inferred that a mutation in the mtDNA occurred every 6,000-12,000 years or a mutation every 300 to 600 generations. The rates were recalculated after research indicated that mutations can occur every 25 to 40 generations in some parts of the DNA.

This is discussed at length at the following website:

http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrial.htmhttp://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm

Mitochondria is defined here:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Mitochondrial+DNA

 

[notto]

As usual, creationists present cherry picked data and their supporters accept it uncritically. This seems to be the same tactic used when they criticize radioactive dating. Take the most unreliable method that is known by those that work with it to be unreliable and present the results from that method as the most reliable and authoritative.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm


Both Parsons and Howell use a technique called restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis. This technique uses restriction enzymes (enzymes which cut sequences of DNA between short identical sequences). The length of the cut pieces is analysed and the presence of mutations will cause the length of the excised sequences to vary. This does tell us a lot about the different alleles on mitochondrial DNA, but since RFLPs can be created by events other than single base pair substitutions, it can be misleading.


Others who attempted to repeat Parson's results with pedigree data were unable to do so (10) and derived a rate little different from the rate given by phylogenetic data which yields an MRCA of 150,000 years. In order to help resolve these discrepancies, all the scientists have pooled their data and the result is a mutation rate of one every 1200 years based on the pedigree data - a rate which is still faster by a factor of five than the rate given by the phylogenetic approach.

No-one in the science community thought that the Parsons et al study supported a matrilineal MRCA of 6,500 years. Nevertheless their work did result in discrepancies between the known date of human geographic dispersion (at least 60,000 years BP) and the apparently very high rate of mitochondrial mutation, which, if taken at face value, would yield a matrilineal MRCA 6,500 years ago.


Subsequent studies have shown the following:

• RFLP analysis (as used by Parsons et al and Howell et al) is not a an appropriate approach to determine mutational rates; whole genome sequencing as used by Ingman et al is more accurate
• There is considerable disagreement between different studies of mutational rate, as measured by pedigree analysis of near relatives, concentrating on the D-loop
• Some of this variation is simply the result of stochastic variations in small sample sizes
• Much of this variation is due to genuinely different mutational rates on the D-loop in different populations
• The rate of fixed mutations over many generations is much lower than the instantaneous mutational rate from generation to generation as a consequence of the elimination of slightly deleterious mutations from the gene pool
• The presence of mitochondrial heteroplasmy will result in an elevated mutational rate in pedigree studies
• The fixed mutational rate outside the D-loop over many generations is constant across primate species and can be used as an accurate mutational 'clock'
• A study of a representative sample of humans from the worldwide population using whole genome analysis and excluding the D-loop yields an age for matrilineal MRCA (Mitochondrial Eve) of 150,000 to 200,000 years
• The same humans give an X-chromosome MRCA of ~480,000 years as predicted.

 

[Micaiah]

AIG have prepared an article on this topic.

Wieland C., "A shrinking date for 'Eve'", <www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp> April 1998

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

The age of 'Eve' has been calculated assuming the age of the supposed common ape/human ancestors.

So for creationists to use this data they must except that humans evolved from an earlier ape species. If one was to reject this premise then this data is useless.

 

[notto]

AIG have prepared an article on this topic.

Wieland C., "A shrinking date for 'Eve'", <www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp> April 1998

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html

And their cherry picking is exposed here. That article was written 1998. They should update it with the more current research or 2000 and 1999:

1. The claim is founded primarily on the work of Parsons et al. (1997), who found that the substitution rate was about 25 times higher in the mitochondria control region, which is less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA). Revised studies of all of the mtDNA find that the control region varies greatly in substitution rates in different populations, but that the rest of the mtDNA shows no such variation (Ingman et al. 2000). Using mtDNA excluding the control region, they placed the age of the most recent common mitochondrial ancestor at 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.
   
   Gibbons (1998) refers to mutations that cause heteroplasmy (inheritance of two or more mtDNA sequences). This does not apply to mitochondrial Eve research, which is based only on substitution mutation rates.
2. A study similar to the mtEve research was done on a region of the X chromosome which does not recombine with the smaller Y chromosome; it placed the most recent common ancestor 535,000 +/- 119,000 years ago (Kaessmann et al. 1999). Since the population size of X chromosomes is effectively three times larger than mitochondria (two X chromosomes from women and one from men can get inherited), the most recent common ancestor should be about three times that of the Mitochondrial Eve, and it is.

 

[Micaiah]

As an interesting diversion, here is another website that gives the sequenced mtDNA of people from various countries and allows a compariseon between them. Enjoy.

http://bioinfo.nist.gov:8080/examples/servlets/SeqComp.html

 

[Micaiah]

Okay Notto, please explain in your own words exactly what you are saying was wrong with the method employed initially for assessing the rate of mtDNA mutation, and how was this overcome in the subsequent tests that were carried out.

Also can you please post a link to a copy of the paper to which you refer.

I chose one of many articles from the AIG site as I considered it had useful information on the topic. If you had read the initial link that I posted you will note that the response you gave was referred to on that website. You may have missed that as you sped read paper.

I just had another look at some of their other more recent articles. They still reference the paper. :o

 

[notto]

Okay Notto, please explain in your own words exactly are you saying was wrong with the method employed initially for assessing the rate of mtDNA mutation, and how was this overcome in the subsequent tests that were carried out.

The method produces a wide range of rates and is done on a small part of the mtDNA. You and AIG cherry picked the results out of that wide range to fit their conclusions. What they don't show you is the studies using the same method that show older ages (or studies that were more extensive than the ones they site and more reliable).

They ignore further tests and tests with more reliable methods (that only look at point mutations and that look at more than 7% of the mtDNA genome). The research that the link you provided to the database is one of those that showed that the studies on the control region are unreliable.

Also can you please post a link to a copy of the paper to which you refer.

This is the paper with more up to date research (and the paper that the database you linked to is based on.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11130070&dopt=Citation

Your original article references this. The abstract is telling them that the information they cherry picked and highlighted is unreliable yet they seem to ignore this.

I chose one of many articles from the AIG site as I considered it had useful information on the topic. If you had read the initial link that I posted you will note that the response you gave was referred to on that website. You may have missed that as you sped read paper.

I read the paper carefully. It doesn't actually seem to support what you would like to conclude as solidly as you make it out to. It includes a great set of references (although they highlight the abstracts in a way to pursuade - cherrypicking). I'm surprised you didn't start with the AIG article. You and AIG seem to be cherry picking from the research that is out there.

Also, none of the reseach referenced seems to take this evidence and conclude anything about mitochondrial eve common ancestor. That seems to be the work of the creationists. Mitochondrial eve studies focus on point mutations. The work sited to support 6500 years doesn't seem to be based on this.

 

[Micaiah]

Am only able to access the abstract of the Nature articles. Until we are able to view the context of those numbers, I cannot be sure you are not cherry picking?

 

[Micaiah]

Which brings us to the point of this article. As we pointed out in our introductory sentence, the news gets worse. The “evolutionary results gained by using the mtDNA clock” are not just “inconclusive.” They’re wrong! In the January 2003 edition of the Annals of Human Genetics, geneticist Peter Forster of Cambridge published an article (“To Err is Human”) in which he documented that, to use his words, “more than half of the mtDNA sequencing studies ever published contain obvious errors.” He then asked: “Does it matter? Unfortunately, in many cases it does.” Then came the crushing blow for “Mitochondrial Eve”: “…fundamental research papers, such as those claiming a recent African origin for mankind (Cann, et al., 1987; Vigilant, et al., 1991)…have been criticized, and rejected due to the extent of primary data errors” (67[1]:2, emp. added). Then, as if to add salt to an already open and bleeding wound, Dr. Forster acknowledged that the errors discovered thus far are “only the tip of the iceberg…,” and that “there is no reason to suppose that DNA sequencing errors are restricted to mtDNA” (67[1]:2,3).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2332


Food for thought.

 

[random_guy]

If you're arguing about Mitochrondrial Eve, she's not the Eve from the Bible, Miciah. She's the most recent common maternal ancestor of all human beings. This does not mean that she was the only woman live that gave birth to all humans, rather her line is the only surviving line.

What I don't understand is why Creationists must cherry pick their science so that they ignore everything that contradicts their beliefs, but then use the same stuff to try to prove their beliefs.

For example, if you accept the science behind Mitochrondrial Eve, do you also accept the science behind Chromosomal-Y Adam? Both use the exact same techiques. From the study, Chromosomal Adam comes after Mitochrondrial Eve. If you accept Mitochrondrial Eve is true, then how do you reconcile that Eve came before Adam by about 50k years?

 

[JohnR7]

Evidence has been bought to light that indicates mitochondrial Eve lived six thousand years ago.

The Eve that lived (about) 6,000 years ago, in the Garden of Eden is the mother of the Hebrew Nation and what they call the Jewish people. Although we are told in reality, very few people who consider themselves Jewish are really pure enough to call themselves that based on their DNA. There is a women doing research on this over at the university in Jerusalem. The Bible tells us that there will only be 144,000 "pure" Hebrews. 12,000 from each of 12 tribes. They already have a marker for the one tribe, the priests or Levi, or Cohans, because they are more easy to identify being public people and they have kept themselves pure over the years so their could carry on the priesthood.

 

[JohnR7]

What I don't understand is why Creationists must cherry pick their science so that they ignore everything that contradicts their beliefs, but then use the same stuff to try to prove their beliefs.

Why not, even in football, if you keep eliminating people, eventually you will get to the one with the ball. I do not know anyone that denys all of science, and very few people who accept all of it.

Of course I understand that you question their methoid of what they pick and choose is different than your methoid. But what makes you feel so superior to them and why do you feel your methoid of picking and choosing is better?

I do not really disagree with you, but we have to pick something to discuss.

 

[random_guy]

Why not, even in football, if you keep eliminating people, eventually you will get to the one with the ball. I do not know anyone that denys all of science, and very few people who accept all of it.

Of course I understand that you question their methoid of what they pick and choose is different than your methoid. But what makes you feel so superior to them and why do you feel your methoid of picking and choosing is better?

I do not really disagree with you, but we have to pick something to discuss.

Maybe you don't understand the method of picking and choosing Miciah is doing. Suppose the Bible said XXX weighs this much and YYY weighs that much. Suppose you weigh XXX and it is true. Now, using the exact same method to weigh XXX, you find out that YYY doesn't way that much, at all. So the convienent thing is to ignore it and pretend that it never happened.

That's the level of picking and choosing that's occurring in this thread. The way that Chromosomal Adam and Mitochrondrial Eve have been determined work on the exact same principles. The different is which DNA segment was used to do the calculations. Why is the Eve study correct, but the Adam one not?

*Of course, this ignores the evidence that ME lived 160k years ago, not 6k years ago.

 

[JohnR7]

Suppose the Bible said XXX weighs this much and YYY weighs that much.

How about science. If you have a drug that heals people, but it does not make you any money compared to a drug that does not heal people but it makes you money. What drug are you going to choose to market?

 

[Tomk80]

How about science. If you have a drug that heals people, but it does not make you any money compared to a drug that does not heal people but it makes you money. What drug are you going to choose to market?

That's marketing decisions, not science.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Of course I understand that you question their methoid of what they pick and choose is different than your methoid. But what makes you feel so superior to them and why do you feel your methoid of picking and choosing is better?

I do not really disagree with you, but we have to pick something to discuss.

Because scientists pick and choose the most reliable methods -- and accept their results only after they are checked, double-checked, triple-checked, published, peer-reviewed, and run through the gauntlet.

Creationists pick and choose the results that happen to agree with their preconcieved conclusions -- regardless of how those results were reached. It could've been a Ouija board for all we kow -- or what they're willing to tell us.

Surely even you must see the difference.

 

[mikeynov]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2332


Food for thought.

Wow, that was a pretty fast turnaround from "Mitochondrial Eve supports the bible" to "MITOCHONDRIAL EVE (the real version) IS WRONG AND STOOPID."

I <3 creationism.

 

[Micaiah]

Because scientists pick and choose the most reliable methods -- and accept their results only after they are checked, double-checked, triple-checked, published, peer-reviewed, and run through the gauntlet.

Creationists pick and choose the results that happen to agree with their preconcieved conclusions -- regardless of how those results were reached. It could've been a Ouija board for all we kow -- or what they're willing to tell us.

Surely even you must see the difference.

A good example of atheistic prejudice.

 

[Tomk80]

A good example of atheistic prejudice.

Since more than one christian on this board has voiced the same concerns about creationists, what Nathan said can hardly be called atheistic prejudice. And the fact that this very thread shows this picking and choosing by creationist organisations like AIG, I can hardly call it a prejudice either. More like an observation.